Religion the virus of society

Society is basic in human evolution we have developed special brain for society.
Normal human have a very sophisticated social brain, every human watch unconsciously every responses from his surrounding and respond in way that his behavior makes no conflict with his society or he will face the rejection which was fatal threat in the past because in our evolution every one rejected died alone or killed by beasts and don't passed his genes and every one feel the pain from rejection reformed and join the society, survived and passed his gene.
Human feel real pain from rejection and no normal human want to be rejected, this pain act as natural reformatory, it produced by chemicals in our brain.
So why people commit crimes that make them rejected by their society.
The religion explanation for this is the evil and the satan.
But there is no such things called evil.
So why a human bring pain to himself, Unless he feel no pain and his social brain is disabled, or he is not aware of what he is doing is distractive. Or what we call mental disorder.
So if there is serial killer who enjoy torture his victims, This is not because of evil it's because of malfunction of his brain or mental disorder.
"A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes either suffering or an impaired ability to function in ordinary life (disability), and which is not developmentally or socially normative. Mental disorders are generally defined by a combination of how a person feels, acts, thinks or perceives. This may be associated with particular regions or functions of the brain or rest of the nervous system, often in a social context."
Wikipedia

But not every criminal have mental disorder, Crimes can be committed by normal people if they consider what they are doing are not crimes, and that because their society approved these crimes.

if there is a crime that means two possible ways either the the one who committed this crime have mental disorder or the society which he get his value from it do not criticized this crime or even praised the crime - like one who born in a mafia family.
Religion praised many criminal act because it was made by ignorant and people who have mental disorders.
So these people who have mental disorder insert their ill behaviors into the societies using religion to fool our original social system.
religion distort society by these codes and everyone come after will not recognize these distortion, just like the the cell which copy virus RNA in its original DNA without knowing it will destroy the body.
We always setup our behavior and tune it to our surrounding to avoid rejection. So if these societies are infected by religion all our behavior will automatically adjusted to the religion, and our social brain follow these instructions.
People do not follow religion directly they follow the society and if society infected people blindly follow the infection codes.
If you born in Christian family you probably became Christian and if you born in Muslim family you became Muslim, it's just like biological DNA copied from parents.

Religion like HIV virus impossible to be cured, and once it copy itself in a society it will use the members of these society to copy itself to the descendants and spread around and there is no way to to remove it.
The only way -like HIV - is to make it less harmful, by deactivate the dangerous codes.

The conclusion is that religious people do not have mental disorder but they follow codes of people who have mental disorders, luckily not every religious take these codes seriously and most codes are inactive but in special circumstances all the codes could be activated and you can see live example in ISIS.
ISIS is like bringing a dinosaur alive instead of being in fossils.
If we investigate the holy books we will find it written by people who we consider now have serious kinds of mental disorders which are embedded in stories and in every line the writers are trying to justify their ill behaviors.

Replies to This Discussion

Thank you for recommending the book, I know little about Christian I only went twice to Jehovah's Witnesses church's just for curiously where I seated in the first line even I'm atheist and hold glass of of wine and bread, and listened to a lecture and I argued with people peacefully this will never ever happen if I debate with Muslims in mosque.

There's been plenty of discussion here about Peter Boghossian's A Manual for Creating Atheists. By calling himself a street epistemologist, he focuses not so much on the non/existence of "god" as on broader questions of "how can we reliably acquire knowledge?" and "what makes beliefs justified or not?" He emphasizes the Socratic method of asking questions to guide people to their own doubts (or conclusions).

When one in-group talks bad about people in a competing group. it often reflects poorly on the people in the in-group. When Muslims talk about Jews, it often makes Muslims look bad. When evangelical Christians talk about gays, it makes the evangelicals look bad. When men talk bad about women, it makes men look bad. So what about when atheists talk bad about believers?

It depends. When the fundie Christians are talking about the gay people, are they directly responding to something that the gay people said? When the Muslims talk about Jews, are they directly responding to something that the Jews said?

Plus, when we talk about the fundies, the fundies will generally agree with the basics. We'll disagree with them about how stupid the basic concept of religious faith is, but they'll agree with most things we say about them, before that point. We'll offer an opinion about the concept of believing in a Bronze Age text, over the discoveries of modern science, but they'll agree on our summation of their basic stance.

Hell, up recently, they would agree with us that they're opposed to basic science education. The attempted co-optation of science for their non-science bullshit is very recent in its inception.

In every in-group, the people think that their criticisms of outsiders are fair. If atheists think that their criticisms of believers are fair, that doesn't set us apart from all the other people criticizing people outside their in-groups.

Note the conditionals I placed on my statements, though. Within a certain scope, our criticisms are more fair than theirs.

When it comes to religious matters, atheists (at least the ones I hang out with) are far more educated about the opposition position than those who hold the opposition position are of ours. Most of us came from the opposition position, before breaking out of our childhood brainwashing. We know the ins and outs of the Christian position, while the reverse becomes obviously false, the moment that most Christians open their mouths to describe the atheist position.

Atheists know a lot about religious stuff, because we're surrounded by the crap. On average, we've apparently studied the subject a lot more than the religious have ... thus leading to our atheism. Our criticisms of religious outsiders are more fair than in most examples, because we're more knowledgeable of the outsiders than in the other pairings you've mentioned.

So, in effect, your statement is inaccurate, when it's been demonstrated that what other in-groups think of themselves is actually the case, with us. That sets us apart from all of the other people who criticize people outside of their in-groups.

I dunno. I'm still waiting for him to address anything that I typed. I can't guess which angle he's approaching it from, when he won't engage in the slightest. He has to explain why he thinks my points aren't valid.

I can't say that I was ever actually a theist, but I had 18 years of the brainwashing, even if it was ineffective. Plus, I've done a huge amount of research since breaking away.

Yea, I've been reading what you've been typing. It looks as though you and I have each expressed ourselves clearly. It's no surprise that people have differences of opinion. The important thing is that we can all get along despite our different viewpoints, right?

You haven't expressed anything beyond the vaguest of nay-saying, though. Your basic statement seems like a complete dismissal of the idea that any group should be allowed to criticize any other group, and I would like to see you justify it. I already explained why your comparisons to fundies bashing gays and Muslims bashing Jews aren't apt.